Does the Buddha ever debate or discuss the Jain view of the Atta in any of the Suttas? It would be interesting to find out how he approaches thier views compared to other ascetics that he debated with. The only places that I know of in the canon where Jains are debated with are generally about Karma and Rebirth

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

"Aggivessana, the Blessed One disciplines his disciples in this way; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples: 'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which the Blessed One disciplines his disciples; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples."

"What a bad thing to hear we have heard, Master Assaji, when we have heard that Gotama the contemplative teaches this sort of thing. Perhaps sooner or later we might go to meet with Gotama the contemplative. Perhaps there might be some discussion. Perhaps we might pry him away from that evil viewpoint."

"Very well then, Aggivessana, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Would a consecrated, noble-warrior king — such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha — wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, he would wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished. Even these oligarchic groups, such as the Vajjians & Mallans, wield the power in their own domains to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished, [5] to say nothing of a consecrated, noble-warrior king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala, or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha. He would wield it, and he would deserve to wield it."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

Thanks Mike and Icyteru. It is interesting to see how the Buddha approaches the Jains as they are a sect who still exist in the world today.However, in that passage, it would seem that the Buddha is misrepresenting or at least overly simplifying the Jain view. It was at least my understanding that Jains viewed the body as a shell whilst the real self was the divine soul.

Regards,

Wilfred

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

Coyote wrote:However, in that passage, it would seem that the Buddha is misrepresenting or at least overly simplifying the Jain view. It was at least my understanding that Jains viewed the body as a shell whilst the real self was the divine soul.

Would that come under "consciousness as self" and so on?

However, it does seem to be the case that the Suttas don't paint a particularly accurate picture of the "opposition", who often seem to be represented as strawmen, to be wheeled in and mocked. But these are teaching discourses, not lectures on philosophy...

Agreed, and I would continue thus:... and I can't help having sneaking suspicions that some of them may have been added or amplified as Buddhism grew, and came in conflict with other religions, in the centuries after the Buddha's passing.(I know my sneaking suspicions are totally unscholarly and personal and all that, but I read a lot of different kinds of books and I like to think I have developed an ear for authorial voices. I do hear distinct voices within the Pali suttas, and even more in Mahayana sutras. YMMV)

mikenz66 wrote:Would that come under "consciousness as self" and so on?

However, it does seem to be the case that the Suttas don't paint a particularly accurate picture of the "opposition", who often seem to be represented as strawmen, to be wheeled in and mocked. But these are teaching discourses, not lectures on philosophy...

Mike

I imagine that anyone experiencing an Atman or Soul would be experiencing some special state of consciousness, that would seem to make the most sense.

mikenz66 wrote:It is perhaps significant that the Buddha and the Jain leader are never in the same scene (sutta) together. It's always followers vs the Buddha or followers vs Nigantha Nathaputta...

Maybe the followers of Nigantha Nathaputta aren't able to debate with much of the technical knowledge. Seems rather unfair of the Buddha to go about things this way...

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

Saccaka the Jain says: "Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self", but that is not a Jain position.

According to Jainism, the is body is not the self, feeling is not, perception is not, mental states are not, nor is consciousness the self, but the mind, what Buddhists call citta, and Theravadins also call bhavanga, that is what the Jain call the self.

Saccaka's view in MN 35 probably was from his own rather than the Jains'. Notice in MN 36, he's known to debate all other Six Masters, including the Jain's founder Nigantha Nataputa himself: From MN 36:

Saccaka the Nigantha said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, Master Gotama. It's astounding — that when Master Gotama is addressed rudely again & again, is assailed by presumptuous courses of speech, the color of his skin brightens, the color of his face clears, as would be the case with one who is worthy and rightly self-awakened. I recall engaging Purana Kassapa in debate. He, when engaged in debate by me, spoke evasively and led the discussion astray, displayed irritation, aversion, & peevishness. But when Master Gotama is addressed rudely again & again, is assailed by presumptuous courses of speech, the color of his skin brightens, the color of his face clears, as would be the case with one who is worthy and rightly self-awakened. I recall engaging Makkhali Gosala... Ajita Kesakambala... Pakudha Kaccayana...Sañjaya Velatthaputta... Nigantha Nataputa in debate. He, when engaged in debate by me, spoke evasively and led the discussion astray, displayed irritation, aversion, & peevishness. But when Master Gotama is addressed rudely again & again, is assailed by presumptuous courses of speech, the color of his skin brightens, the color of his face clears, as would be the case with one who is worthy and rightly self-awakened ~~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ~~